Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware that a number of organisations have been complementary about the efforts that the Pakistan military has made, particularly in handling some of the logistical difficulties that arose. The reconstruction efforts are likely to take some three to four years. The urgent thing to tackle between now and the onset of winter is the situation of the 50,000 people who still have not been able to go back to their village because of the nature of the disaster. We will need to ensure that semi-permanent camps are produced between now and the onset of winter so that they are sheltered.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that helicopters were previously used in early May, but if I am wrong about that I will write to the noble Lord.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he accept that this is a fast moving area of technology with very exciting developments and that the UK has not led the field, as recognised in the report from the other place entitled Too little too late? We are losing out on some of the benefits of this exciting technology. Given the timescale involved, is the Minister confident that some of the hazards that this country will face—the products are already being imported and used here—will not pose a threat to human health or the environment? We just do not know whether they will. The resources devoted are too little, and the time taken by his department is too long. The market will be flooded with these products before we know much about them.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is basically a reconfiguration of atoms and molecules in a way that has not existed before but is engineered by man. I can give the noble Earl some examples. He may have read about the phenomenon of self-cleaning windows. There are such things, and that is nanotechnology. The windows are coated with a material that is born out of nanotechnology. Work has also been done on sunscreens, and nanotechnology could have a massive benefit in the remediation of contaminated solar water supplies. It has a lot of pluses, but we also have to measure the risk of possible minuses; that is the important point. Self-cleaning windows are a good example.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend how disappointed I am at the Americans' attitude. Here we are, the most loyal and staunchest ally, yet when we go to them and ask for technology and benefits, they do not reciprocate and offer them to us. Why is that? Why are they dragging their feet in that way? I understand that talks have taken place, but what measures are we taking to get the Americans to change their minds and to realise that it cannot all be one-way traffic?

Lord Garden: My Lords, I assume that the Minister receives copies of the United States Government Accountability Office reports, of which there have been two recently on the Joint Strike Fighter. The first, on 22 May, criticises the US Department of Defense for increasing costs through not competing the engine—in other words, the GAO supports the Rolls-Royce solution. Does the Minister agree that that is a case to be made? The second report of the 15 March is more worrying. Does the Minister share the GAO's concerns about the risks of cost-price inflation for the JSF, given that the Americans are going into production before they have finished development?

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, with reference to my earlier question, I also wonder whether the Minister could reassure us at this stage that the role of local government authorities will not extend to acting as what one might call a point of entry for initial checks.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. That was one concern that we had considered between Committee and today's debate. I will use this opportunity to thank the Minister for the chance that we had to meet him and his officials to discuss the Bill before going on Report. That has been extremely helpful.
	I am pleased that the Minister has responded to our repeated proposal that it should be possible to second individuals from industry and other organisations to refresh the IBB, and that those secondees should extend to staff at the board. It is important too that we have had this opportunity to clarify how the system is to work, the composition of the board and its total staffing numbers—it is helpful to know now that we can envisage around 100 staff—and the numbers of decisions in respect of applications and bars. I thank the Minister for his detailed response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 68 and 69, which are all part of a package. My concern throughout our consideration of the Bill has been twofold. First, I have wanted to see as broad as possible a mechanism for ensuring that people who may present a risk to children or vulnerable adults are picked up through this new mechanism and placed on the barred list. Secondly, however, I am concerned about situations where names might be put forward maliciously or without proper regard. These amendments would ensure that the legal indemnities, which were extremely wide in the original Bill, would not apply in situations where the provision of information that would lead to the Independent Barring Board considering whether to include someone on the barred list was originated by someone who knew that the information was untrue. In those circumstances, one would have to assume that the information had been provided maliciously. That is an essential safeguard.
	Later amendments address the requirement for a professional judgment to be expressed when considering whether someone may be liable to cause harm or may intend to do so, but what worries me are situations in which the judgment, regardless of whether it is expressed by a professional, may be used to harm an individual entirely maliciously. I can conceive of circumstances where that may happen, particularly in smaller organisations where a chief executive has found a certain member of staff irritating, annoying, disruptive and so on, but whose behaviour had nothing to do with their professional conduct in respect of children or vulnerable adults. That chief executive may decide, once the individual has left the organisation, that he will try to wreck their future career, and to do so by making a reference to the IBB. We must have a provision that protects people from that kind of abuse in what is otherwise an extremely important system. That is why the amendment is designed to ensure that anyone who may have such a malign intention to try to destroy someone's name and future career would not be the recipient of the indemnity that the Bill previously would have given them. That is why I think the amendment is important. It would provide a vital safeguard and make sure that the system is not brought into disrepute by individuals trying to abuse it. It is because I want the system to work that I believe it is important to reduce the legal indemnity originally included in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, my noble friend has rightly raised the issue of vexatious and malicious allegations masquerading as references of information to the Independent Barring Board. He raised the point both at Second Reading and in Grand Committee. We have given it a good deal of consideration and agree that it is important to limit the exemption from claims for damages in the case of vexatious and malicious allegations. We are therefore very glad that he has come forward with these amendments which refine the previous provisions made by the Bill. His new subsection (2) of Clause 43 would remove protection from damages claims in cases where the provider of the information knew that the information was untrue, and was either the originator of the information or caused another to be the originator of the information.
	We believe that it is important to limit the exception to these cases. We do not want to allow claims for damages to be made in cases where referring bodies are under a duty to provide information which they had no hand in creating and the content of which they could not control. But we see no reason why referring bodies should be protected from defamation claims in circumstances where they deliberately create defamatory material which they know to be untrue for the purpose of referring it to the IBB.
	We entirely agree with my noble friend in this regard. We understand the impact that allegations to the IBB will have on the personal and professional reputations of those affected, and we do not want allegations of untrue information to blight people's lives. On the other hand, we do not want to reduce the flow of information that is true, or genuinely believed to be true, because this information forms the basis on which the IBB can consider whether to include a person in the list.
	We are therefore very happy to support the amendments of my noble friend, as we believe that they address both these points. They give a legitimate exemption from claims for damages, but they do not impede the proper flow of information to the IBB. On that basis, we are content to accept the amendments of my noble friend.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. When I looked at the two lists I thought it must be a typing error, because consistency would seem to be appropriate. I spent many years as a regulator for the premium rate industry and have probably seen more pornography and read more of the rather unpleasant Sunday newspapers than most of you. It is quite true that there is other "inappropriate pornography". I do not mind what people do behind closed doors so long as it does not affect children or vulnerable adults. There is pornography that will have that effect. We have experts on the IBB who can make that assessment and I think that they should be allowed to do so.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I think that I implicitly accepted that point. I certainly was not proposing that we would amend paragraph 9(1)(c) by changing "pornography" to "child pornography" in respect of vulnerable adults. Any change could go only other way. I entirely accept the point that my noble friend makes. As I say, I will come back to this at Third Reading.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, at Second Reading and in Grand Committee, I expressed the strong belief that it was important that there be some mechanism to refer cases where there was a perception of a "risk of harm". I cited examples from memory, from when I was chair of a social services committee. They were examples in which, with all their years of professional judgment, the professional supervising an individual about whom there was concern felt that the relationship that this individual had with a child, or a vulnerable adult, was somehow inappropriate but the professional could not actually point to specific behaviour. It seemed that capturing that professional judgment was important for the work of the IBB.
	I had the concern, similar to that of the noble Baroness, about ensuring that this is done in a way that can be reasonably validated. In fact, the noble Baroness has tabled an amendment, which is rather less restrictive than the one I moved in Grand Committee, where I had in mind a concept of two people expressing a view that there was a concern and a "risk of harm". By specifying that it is a professional, and by specifying some of the categories of profession—with a degree of latitude for the Secretary of State to vary that list in the light of experience—it seems that the noble Baroness's proposal amplifies the Bill, provides protection, and clarifies what is looked for. Introducing the concept of "risk of harm" is quite a major step. Again, we want to ensure that it is got right, and I will be listening with extreme care to my noble friend's response. An amendment, perhaps along the lines put forward now, would strengthen the Bill.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I am unable to support the amendment as it is phrased. My deep concern about this Bill, as the Minister knows, is that we—some organisations—are working to enable people—usually men—who have inappropriate thoughts about children to come forward. If those who have a real anxiety about themselves in relation to children—who on assessment can be shown to be not a risk—are referred, we will find that they will not come forward. I speak as the deputy chair of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, running the Stop It Now! helpline. Adults who are worried about their own behaviours are coming forward, but they are seriously concerned about the consequences for their whole lives and for their families. In my experience, I know that there are risks and that it would be useful if we could find some provision that would strengthen the provision. But, like the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I am concerned about this amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The purpose of this amendment is to distinguish under-18s from other offenders who might be barred by the IBB, and to ensure that their issues are treated differently. Once again, this issue was raised in discussion in Grand Committee, and in response to my noble friend Lady Walmsley the Minister made it clear that no person under the age of 18 would be included on either list automatically. He said,
	"There may be mitigating circumstances which mean that it will not be appropriate in every case to include young people who commit offences on a barred list without the right to make representations . . . He or she may not present a risk of harm to children in general and therefore may not be an appropriate person to automatically be included in the children's barred list. Consequently, we do not intend that those under the age of 18 when the relevant offence is committed should be included on either list automatically. Instead, they would be dealt with under a discretionary route, with a right to make representations. I assure the noble Baroness that we will consider this when making regulations to cover the prescribed criteria for automatic inclusion".
	He also made it clear that the filter requiring leave to make representations would still apply, and that the IBB would not be required to conduct a full review including representations unless there was new evidence to be assessed. This amendment challenges that conclusion, and asks for a full review to be undertaken on all cases of under-18s included on the barred list when they reach the age of 18. In addition it requires that all those under 18 who are on the barred list receive therapeutic treatment to help alter their behaviour.
	Our reason for asking this is that it is important to remember that these young children are not young sex offenders. Most are not motivated by a sexual preference for children, although such behaviour can become entrenched. Rather, the behaviour is the response of a very vulnerable set of children to their own experiences and difficulties; it is a way of expressing anger and exerting power on the part of those with complex issues and needs. Such children are still in the process of maturation, and can be helped away from spiralling patterns of sexual abuse. While we need to acknowledge the risk these children pose to others, we must also acknowledge that these are children with severe needs who need help and specialised services themselves. What is more, there is clear evidence that such help can and does change behaviour for the good.
	These worrying policy developments have seen a move away from a child welfare approach with regard to under-18s to a criminal justice approach. The problem is clearly that the Department of Health and the Home Office come to these areas from different starting points. We believe that it is essential that child protection and criminal justice agencies work together, and that there is a clear obligation on social services departments to respond to this group of children and young people from the child protection perspective. Children and young people going down the criminal justice route are unlikely to be adequately assessed in terms of their own needs.
	The outcomes of these different routes are inevitably very different. Behaviour can result in no further action under social services, whereas a custodial sentence can lead to a child being placed on the sex offenders register. It is important to recognise that the models of risk assessment for an offending child and those for an offending adult are very different. Children are still in the process of developing and maturing, and their lives may be in constant change. It is important that there is an appropriate risk assessment, with a model in place that is clearly appropriate to the under-18s. If these children have been found to be sexually harming we need to offer them services to help them change their behaviour, and, if we do so, we need to give them a chance to lead a life that is not stigmatised by early misdemeanours. I beg to move.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has three distinct elements. The first is the right of those under the age of 18 to make representations in all cases without exception. The second is their right to have those cases reviewed at the age of 18 and the third is to provide for mandatory assessment of need for such young individuals. I believe that I can more than meet the noble Baroness in the first respect and I hope that I can give her sufficient reassurances in the second and third respects in relation to the issues that she raised.
	We entirely agree with the noble Baroness that it would not be appropriate for those under the age of 18 to be automatically included in the children's barred list without the right to make representations. Indeed, we would wish to go further than that and ensure that no juvenile under the age of 18 could be included in either list—the children's list or the vulnerable adults' list—automatically without the right to make representations. The regulations that we will make under paragraph 19 to Schedule 2 will ensure that that is the case and that there is a right for juveniles to make representations on their inclusion in either list.
	Where somebody who is under 18 has committed one of the specified offences, the IBB would consider this under a discretionary route, allowing the individual to make representations. The IBB will, as with all discretionary cases, need to make a judgment whether the individual poses a risk to vulnerable groups and whether it is appropriate to include them in either or both barred lists.
	The second proposition is that under-18s who are included on the children's barred list will have their case reviewed when they turn 18. That raises the possibility that somebody could be included on the list in this scenario just before their 18th birthday and then undergo an almost immediate IBB review of their case at their 18th birthday. We do not think that that would be a satisfactory regime so we are not drawn to the precise wording of the noble Baroness's amendment but we have sympathy with the position that she has set out.
	We have, however, already considered how to deal with reviews within the barring scheme and have a policy which we believe makes adequate provision for younger individuals. Our intention is to specify a minimum barring period following an IBB decision. The current barring schemes and other similar barring mechanisms, such as disqualification orders made by courts, have a minimum barring period of 10 years for adults and five years for juveniles. This would be our starting point for consultation: a minimum barring period of five years for juveniles, which is a substantially reduced period than that which applies to adults.
	However, after taking further advice from professionals in the field, we are considering a shorter minimum barring period for those under 25 to reflect maturity issues. Again, we would consult on this age boundary before setting it in regulations. Once the minimum period has expired, the individual may request a review of their case and make any representations which support their removal from the list. If an individual chooses not to request a review after the minimum barring period, presumably on the basis that their case would not be strong enough, there would be nothing to stop them applying for a review at a later date, once they felt they had sufficient evidence that they were no longer a risk. This is intended to introduce an element of flexibility for the individual and to ensure that the IBB's time is spent considering cases of substance, rather than those resulting from an administrative trigger of the kind envisaged in the amendment.
	The final section of the amendment would require an assessment of the needs of anyone under 18 who is included on the children's barred list, and the provision of appropriate therapeutic services. This is a much more complicated proposal. We have great sympathy with the arguments put by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Howarth, in this regard, but we do not consider that the IBB's role should be assessing needs or providing therapeutic services. The IBB must focus on vetting and barring to protect vulnerable adults and children from abuse by those who would work with them.
	We assume that the proposal in the amendment would require referral to existing service providers, such as the NHS, local authority children's social care services or appropriate charitable organisations. Again, this does not fit with the IBB's primary role and it would be unhelpful that an IBB referral to a therapeutic service provider is made at the end of a process. The IBB's decision is based on information from police, sector bodies, employers, courts and other sources, any or all of which will have been able to advise the individual to seek medical or psychiatric help at earlier stages—of course in all such cases, the earlier, the better. To make an assessment compulsory for juveniles upon barring is not the most effective way to help these individuals and would add an additional set of processes where there are already established routes to access help of this kind, such as child and adolescent mental health services and the requirement on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need.
	On the basis that I have been able to meet the first of the noble Baroness's concerns and to offer reassurances on the second and third, I hope that she may feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful and even more pleased. In relation to the second issue, I understand that the Government are considering setting a shorter barring period for under 25s. Will the Minister let us know when that has been decided? Are we likely to know before the Bill completes its passage through the House?

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, it would be helpful if the Minister could let us know. Obviously we would like to see a shorter barring period of, say, three years. This would apply to those who are under 18, as distinct from under 25. The Minister raised the case of someone barred just before their eighteenth birthday, but for those who are barred from the age of 15 or 16 it could be important in terms of the career that they seek to develop. A three-year bar would be far more appropriate. It would give them a chance to embark on proper training, which is the sort of thing that we are concerned about.
	We accept entirely that it is not the IBB's role to police the provision of therapeutic services. Equally, because it is so important that young adults—the under-18s—receive therapeutic services, it would be extremely helpful if the IBB could check at some point whether the appropriate authorities are providing them. We know that frequently such matters fall between the stools of the responsibilities of different services. The police do not do it because they think the social services are doing it, and the social services do not do it because it has come up through a psychiatrist in the NHS. Nobody makes sure that those therapeutic services are being provided to the young adult.
	We will withdraw the amendment but it would be good if the Minister could reconsider the issue and reassure us, perhaps in guidance, that the IBB would satisfy itself that such services were being provided.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, noble Lords may recall our debate in Grand Committee regarding the possibility of appeals based on findings of fact. As I explained, the amendment would give an individual who has been automatically included on the barred list the right to appeal the decision regardless of whether the IBB wishes to receive the appeal. It would also place a duty on the IBB to monitor the rehabilitation progress of those included on its list by reviewing the status of automatically listed individuals every five years.
	I hope that I assured Members of the Grand Committee that the amendment was not intended to give individuals who have committed heinous crimes an easy ride. It was intended to preserve the integrity of the IBB and to ensure that it functions to the very highest standards.
	The Minister's response to our concerns regarding findings of fact was very welcome. He said that he was giving "intensive" consideration to the issue of appeals. His response to our amendment proposing to allow an application for review following a period of no less than five years, again the Minister's response was constructive. He said:
	"On the minimum period within which an individual may not apply for a review, we [the Government] intend to use regulations to make provision for a review period of five years in the case of under-25s, to reflect developing maturity, and 10 years for those over 25".—[Official Report, 02/05/06; col. GC 196.]
	We were very pleased with that statement and with the Minister's response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
	Following the Minister's "intensive" consideration, we were pleased to receive from him in this morning's internal post an information note on appeals—for which we are grateful and to which he will no doubt refer—and an explanation of his amendments grouped with mine. I am grateful to the Minister for responding very positively to our concerns on appeals on findings of fact and for his co-operation on these important points.
	However, I would like to detain the House a little longer to probe further on the status of employers during the investigation and decision-making process. I am sure that noble Lords will remember the debate in Grand Committee on the status of employees. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, tabled an amendment—I believe it was Amendment No. 58—which would have given employers the right to initiate appeals of an IBB decision. The Minister's reply then prompted an interesting research project on employment law on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition. The Minister stated in Grand Committee:
	"Nothing in the IBB's decision not to bar an individual limits the right of a specific employer not to employ a specific individual. I should stress that point. It cannot be emphasised enough that a decision by the IBB not to bar someone is quite separate from the decision of an employer as to whether or not to employ them in the full knowledge of their past history . . . We would expect employers to take their duties in that regard very seriously indeed, irrespective of any decisions of the IBB not to bar an individual".—[Official Report, 2/5/06; col. GC202.]
	Reassuring as those words are, I could not help but imagine a case where an employer turns down an otherwise perfect candidate for a job, or a person is made redundant from a job that is in no way a regulated activity, due to their inclusion on a barred list. While it is not my intention to make life easy for those whose crimes merit inclusion on one or both of the barred lists, I am anxious about the state of employers. The main question is: could inclusion on a barred list lead to unfair dismissal representations from any job or a dismissal that will see the employment tribunals and employers under pressure. Unless the job is a regulated activity, inclusion on a barred list should supposedly have no bearing on employment decisions; therefore, I would be grateful for confirmation of that from the Minister. If a job is not regulated, can an employer dismiss someone from it on grounds of lack of faith or no-confidence on finding that an individual is on a barred list?
	If an individual is working in a regulated activity and commits a crime which ends up with his inclusion on the list, the position is clear: an employer will have the right to dismiss that individual on the basis of misconduct. It would be deemed fair for the purposes of statutory unfair dismissal protection, on the basis that continued employment would be against the law.
	However, my interest is in the read-across to employers who are not regulated activity providers. How does the Minister envisage the information on the lists fitting into current employment law? There is clearly a risk that misinformation and, worse, prejudice could lead to employment malpractice. Employers have a duty of mutual trust and confidence in relation to their employees, which must be balanced with a duty to take care to protect vulnerable people from harm. That is just as much a problem for regulated activity providers as it is for non-regulated providers.
	the employers in question were in breach of the implied mutual trust and confidence because they had no reasonable grounds to suspend the plaintiff and failed to carry out a proper investigation of the circumstances before suspending her. That is a case for diligence on the part of the employers.
	There is a distinction to be drawn between that process of investigating whether a vulnerable person is at risk of significant harm and the process of dealing with an employee who may be implicated in that risk. But this Bill takes no account of those issues and simply renders it unlawful to employ an individual who is debarred. In terms of regulated activity, the employee's only recourse is at the stage of being barred, not during the consequent action of the employer. However, if an allegation is not investigated at the relevant time, and a vulnerable person suffers as a result, there could be a charge of negligence.
	Let us consider the other side of the argument: where an individual has been investigated and found to be innocent of any wrongdoing, yet is subsequently dismissed or refused employment. On that point, we fully support Amendment No. 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which we shall come to in due course. The Minister proposes to bring forward provisions to ensure that malicious or vexatious accusations are considered as part of an IBB inclusion. I believe that those amendments have already been agreed to today. They should at least give an employee the right to bring a charge of defamation against an individual for making false or defamatory statements, and the employee could bring a claim against an employer for a breach of the duty of mutual trust and confidence for making or acting on a false allegation. The law is in some ways clear. My anxiety is that the Bill could generate a blame culture that sees employers unwilling to employ and people unwilling to work in a culture that threatens rather than supports job status. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 27 in this group. I thank the Minister for listening to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and I about the need to allow finding fact appeals. I hope that part of his decision to table Amendment No. 20 was based on the suspicion that otherwise the Bill would be non-compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. Having said that, if the appeals tribunal is going to be hearing appeals not just on points of law but also on finding of fact, we need to be reassured that the personnel on the tribunal have the appropriate expertise to make those decisions. That is why I have introduced Amendment No. 27, which is similar to an amendment that I tabled in Grand Committee, to specify some of the areas of expertise that should be represented on the care standards tribunal when it is hearing appeals on both law and finding of fact points.
	It is vitally important that the members of that tribunal know what they are talking about when they are looking at issues of fact. I am aware, thanks to the explanation from the Minister in his recent letter to us, that situations where the facts have already been established by a competent authority such as the courts will not be allowed because those issues have already been raked over and a competent authority has found those facts to be correct. We are talking about situations where considerable discretion and understanding of the issues may be needed in looking at whether the facts of the matter were correct.
	That is why I have reintroduced the amendment and asked for it to be grouped along with the Minister's amendment introducing appeals based on the finding of fact. I understand that the care standards commission consists of about 100 people; about 20 legal people and 80 lay people. But we do not know about the expertise of those lay people. Does it include a sufficient range of people who have the sort of expertise to carry out the new appeals that will be asked of them? My intention with the amendment is to ensure that the appropriate expertise is there on the tribunal that will hear the appeals.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, in replying to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on Amendment No. 7, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on Amendment No. 27, I will speak also to government Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25. I will also deal with the impact on employment status of employing on the basis of disclosure of information, which was the wider issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and which has been of concern to her.
	Amendment No. 7 and the government amendments relate to the grounds for appeal against IBB decisions. This issue was debated at both Second Reading and in Grand Committee. Concerns were expressed that appeals should not be limited to points of law when decisions are being taken about such a serious matter as barring individuals from the entire children's workforce and vulnerable adult workforce. The Government have given a good deal of consideration to the points made and wider issues raised and our Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 24 and 25 have been introduced to extend the current provision to allow appeals on points of fact, in addition to appeals on points of law. In a note I sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and copied to other noble Lords yesterday, I set out at some length our thinking on the issue of appeals.
	New subsection (1A) provides that an appeal may be brought on the ground that the IBB made a mistake on a point of law or on any finding of fact which it has made and on which its decision was based. The appeal must be subject to leave being granted by the Care Standards Tribunal to avoid appeals which are frivolous or vexatious or unlikely in the opinion of the IBB to succeed.
	An individual will not be able to dispute findings of fact which have been established in a court of law, or as a result of their acceptance of a caution for an offence—which is an admission that they committed the offence. We would not wish the scheme to allow an individual to, in effect, re-run the earlier arguments considered by a court. Findings of fact made by a competent body, such as the General Medical Council, or the General Teaching Councils for England and Wales—the full list is given in paragraph 12(4) of Schedule 2—will also not be subject to appeal. The competent bodies all have robust processes of decision-making, including oral hearings, prior to reaching their decisions. Again, we would not wish to re-run a set of arguments which were considered by, for example, the General Medical Council or the General Teaching Council as to why a doctor or teacher should or should not have been struck off.
	But the IBB is not only a fact-finding body. It has the very important function of deciding whether, on those facts, it is appropriate for a person to be excluded from regulated activity relating to children or vulnerable adults or both. That is an expert function, and we intend the IBB to have the expertise in its composition to determine those matters. We want the IBB to be the body which has this role, rather than a separate body on appeal.
	The effect of new subsection (1B) is that the exercise of the IBB's discretion in this matter—that is, deciding whether or not it is appropriate for a person to be included in a barred list—is not a ground on which an appeal may be made to the Care Standards Tribunal. Of course if, in coming to its decision on appropriateness, the IBB made an error of law or on any finding of fact, there could be an appeal under the amendments.
	Together, the effect of these amendments will be to give a wider right of appeal in cases where there is a dispute on points of fact. That will ensure that there is a right to appeal where issues of fact are disputed and will therefore enhance transparency and public understanding of the scheme as a whole.
	Amendment No. 7, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, would allow appeals for those automatically included on a barred list for a small number of the most serious offences, such as rape of a child. I explained in some detail at Second Reading and in Committee why we felt that an appeal would be unnecessary in such extreme cases and I hope the noble Baroness will be satisfied with that position.
	The second part of Amendment No. 7 would place a duty on the IBB to review automatic barring cases after no less than five years. The information note which I circulated prior to the Committee stage indicated that we would use as our starting point for consultation the 10-year period under the current schemes, with a shorter period for younger individuals, as I said in our earlier discussion. We are open to further discussion on this issue and will consult but we feel that consultation and regulations are the right way to handle review periods, allowing a degree of flexibility to adapt to circumstances, rather than including a requirement in the Bill.
	Finally, government Amendment No. 22 removes the provision that an individual is kept on the list in the absence of an IBB decision. That also reflects discussion in Grand Committee. We recognise that there is a technical difficulty with Clause 4(2): notably, that there is no mechanism for an individual to come off the list in such cases. That is part of the detail of IBB processes which will be dealt with as a package of measures in regulations under paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 2, following consultation.
	On the issue of the composition of the Care Standards Tribunal raised under Amendment No. 27 by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we entirely agree with her that it is essential to ensure that panels considering appeals against decisions made by the IBB have the right experience and expertise in relation to each case being considered. As the House will know, the composition of the Care Standards Tribunal is determined by regulations. These will need to be adjusted to reflect the new range of appeals that the Care Standards Tribunal will be handling once the new vetting and barring scheme is available, and we shall certainly take account at that point of the views expressed today and in earlier debates on what types of expertise should be available. That, of course, includes all the categories of membership set out by the noble Baroness in her amendments.
	The Care Standards Tribunal currently considers appeals from those included on the existing lists. It already contains a number of members with experience of vulnerable groups. When appointing a lay panel for a tribunal, regulations provide that the president of the tribunal must nominate members who appear to him to have experience and qualifications relevant to the subject matter of the case. To give the president of the tribunal the ability to select appropriate lay panel members for each case, the current regulations provide for individuals to be experienced in one of the listed areas of expertise. Examples of the type of experience required include: experience in the education sector or the health sector; conducting disciplinary investigations; being a member of a child protection committee or similar; and experience of child protection conferences or negotiating the conditions of service of employees. We will consult further on this issue and ensure that the existing secondary legislation to provide for the Care Standards Tribunal lay panel membership is amended as appropriate to include any additional expertise necessary for the tribunal to fulfil its extended remits. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
	Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, expressed concern about employers and the decisions that they take on the basis of disclosure of information. Employers already decide not to employ someone on the basis of information obtained on disclosure or by other means where an individual is not barred. However, any employment decision is open to challenge on the basis of discrimination, whether or not it is within the scope of barring schemes. It is, we believe, only right that individuals have the right to challenge an employer's decision not to employ someone if, for example, they are the subject of race or sexual discrimination. We do not believe that this position is changed at all by the additional provisions in the Bill.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am glad to seed the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in his place as he has played a great part in the genesis of this amendment. So, indeed, have other noble Lords present who raised concerns that led to considerable debate both at Second Reading and in Committee about the relationship between the vulnerable adults list and the list of those barred from working in the children's workforce.
	Amendment No. 10, which owes a good deal to the discussions we had at Second Reading and in Committee, makes explicitly clear in the Bill what we believe is already implicit there, that the IBB should consider any information it receives in relation to both lists—that is, the children's workforce list and the list of those barred from working with vulerable adults. IBB experts will then exercise their judgment in deciding whether the information merits being taken to further consideration in which the individual would be invited to make representations on that information, which could be in relation to either or both lists. I set out our thinking on the issue when I met the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and have mentioned it to other noble Lords in our discussions. I hope that it will meet the legitimate concerns raised that there should be proper consideration of cases that are referred for both lists, not simply for one. I beg to move.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 33, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 45, 46, 47, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57 and 71 to 76. This is a group of minor and technical amendments on the coverage of vulnerable adults in the Bill and legislation that is the responsibility of the Department of Health.
	We have brought forward Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35 in recognition of the fact that at Second Reading my noble friend Lady Thornton pointed out that internet chat rooms for vulnerable adults are not covered by the Bill although they are covered in respect of children. This amendment corrects that anomaly. It will ensure that where chat rooms are targeted at vulnerable adults, as defined in Clause 45, and where someone is employed to moderate the content of that chat room for the purposes of adult protection—that is, identifying and preventing abuse—then that post will come within the definition of regulated activity in relation to adults, and is covered by the scope of the bar.
	Amendment No. 37 seeks to ensure that all inspectors working for the Healthcare Commission and the Commission for Social Care Inspection will be included in the definition of regulated activity and, therefore, covered by the scope of the bar. That was always our intention; this amendment puts it beyond doubt.
	Amendment No. 39 is a transitional provision. Clause 15 is intended to provide that where a person is already employed by the NHS as his main job, he will be able to undertake temporary postings within the NHS to cover staffing gaps and shortages. This is one way in which the NHS seeks to minimise reliance on expensive outside agency staff. Often such temporary postings may well be for the duration of a shift to cover sickness absence or similar. A person in this situation may have been employed in the NHS for many years before the Bill comes into force, so will not be subject to monitoring. As a result, there needs to be protection against the commission of an offence in these circumstances because the appropriate monitoring arrangements will not be in place. This amendment provides that protection.
	In addition, where an NHS employee has been checked in relation to his main NHS employments, Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 ensure that this check remains valid for temporary postings that he undertakes while that main employment continues. This means that the NHS does not have to undertake a new monitoring check each time an NHS employee undertakes a temporary NHS posting which may last for just a few hours. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the necessity to carry out such a check each time has the potential to undermine the swift and efficient deployment of NHS staff to where they are most needed.
	Amendment No. 53 merely corrects Clause 15(2), given that the provisions in it are being repealed.
	Amendments Nos. 40 and 47 extend the exemption in Clause 14, which exempts certain regulated activity providers from the obligation to make a monitoring check, to the requirement placed on individuals to be subject to monitoring and to the requirements placed on regulated activity providers to ensure that a person they engage is subject to monitoring. Where there is no obligation on a regulated activity provider to make a monitoring check in the first place, it makes no sense for the individual to commit an offence when he engages in regulated activity in these circumstances without being subject to monitoring. Neither does it make sense for the regulated activity provider to commit an offence if he engages a person who is not subject to monitoring. This is a necessary drafting amendment to give effect to the intention behind Clause 14, which is to exempt certain employers from the requirement to check, and the associated offences, but to ensure that these sectors were able to make such checks. I emphasise that regardless of whether there is a requirement to check, where someone is barred they will be committing an offence by undertaking regulated activity.
	An amendment was made in Committee to include those who have created an enduring power of attorney as well as a lasting power of attorney. Amendment No. 51 ensures that the exemption from the requirement to check applies to both equally. In effect, this corrects a drafting omission.
	Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations doing two things: first, to amend the definition of controlled activity in relation to vulnerable adults by adding further types of activity that can qualify as a controlled activity in the circumstances set out in Clause 19(2); secondly, to add persons involved in those activities to those who must have regard to guidance relating to permitting people to engage in controlled activity issued under Clause 20.
	The current definition in the Bill covers only those working in health and social care, where we know the risks are greatest and where checks will be required. However, we want to retain the flexibility to amend the description of controlled activity, should service provision change in the years ahead. We have made the same provision in relation to regulated activity.
	Amendment No. 57 seeks to marry all the references to access to health records in the Bill so that there is true consistency. We prefer the more general term of health records rather than medical records, as this is the term used more widely in reference to information that health services hold about individuals; it has been used elsewhere in legislation, such as the Access to Health Records Act 1990.
	Amendments Nos. 71 to 76 are drafting changes made for the purposes of clarifying these provisions grammatically.
	I trust that these minor and technical amendments will be acceptable to noble Lords. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I hope that the Minister agrees that it would make sense if I spoke in this grouping to my Amendments Nos. 38A, 50A and 55A. In my seven years on Her Majesty's Opposition Front Bench, I cannot remember a more difficult issue in relation to deciding what is right. It is such a difficult balance to strike. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, spoke eloquently and with a good deal of sense with regard to his amendment. He stated, most importantly, that friends are the often most difficult people to reject when they offer help to someone they know. That rings true and everyone appreciates that the Government are no doubt finding it difficult to strike the right balance too.
	My amendments are the result of several meetings that noble Lords have attended since Grand Committee. I was disappointed to have missed the meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisden, but I have been fully briefed on that discussion. This cluster of amendments is intended to demonstrate our commitment to ensuring the very best safeguarding standards for those who employ people at home.
	Amendment No. 38A is the vital amendment and is designed to achieve two major objectives. First, the amendment and the others that support it would ensure that the duty to check potential direct payment employees would be required only for those third parties who act on behalf of a vulnerable adult. That position is defined in Section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act. My amendment differs on that point from the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, which, as I understand it, would mean that all people who employ under direct payment schemes, including those who employ for their own care, would be under a duty to make checks. I agree with the noble Lord that it is much easier blame the law and say, "I'm terribly sorry, but the law requires me to make this check", rather than being put in the difficult position of proposing to a friend or a member of the family the need to carry out that check. However, I am concerned that that is perhaps pushing the balance too far. Of course, it is so difficult to police this issue.
	Secondly, the amendment links up the duty of care in the Mental Capacity Act with the new provisions for care—the barred lists—that the Bill will introduce. It was my concern that an individual providing third-party care would find himself in breach of the Mental Capacity Act by not carrying out a check. It is reasonable to suggest that if a vulnerable adult were to suffer abuse because the person responsible for them as a third party did not make a check, that person could be said to have breached their duty of care. I understand that there was a long discussion on this at the meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and cross-table support for the reasoning that a mandatory check would be easier to implement.
	I am aware of the position of Carers UK on the suggestion that direct payment employees would be subject to a check, but this amendment does not affect people who provide care entirely for themselves. Rather, it seeks to protect those who can no longer care for themselves. Making a check itself does not reflect in any way on the character of the person subject to checking. That is an important point. But I understand that it may be difficult to say to a potential employee, especially a friend, that you would like to make a check on them to care for your mother or grandmother. Surely it is far easier to say, "I'm sorry, the check is mandatory", and to have the reassurance that that person is a safe bet as a matter of course. I look forward to the Minister's reply as I know that she has been working on the issue with her officials and had promised to come back to me on that point.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, as the Bill stands, Clause 6(5) provides an exemption from the definition of regulated activity provider in relation to family members or friends who make arrangements for the provision of regulated activity for individuals within their care. Amendment No. 38 would remove that exemption in relation to family members and friends; for example, to ensure that checks are made where care is arranged by a third party. I do not believe that this is a loophole, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Harris. To accept this amendment would mean interfering in private arrangements, which is something that we wish to avoid. Indeed, one of the underlying principles of the Bill is that Government should not impose requirements on individuals' private lives and on family members or friends of vulnerable adults.
	Noble Lords will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, tabled a similar amendment in Committee and we debated the issue at length. I understand that this is an area of concern for many and I welcome the opportunity to give the House further assurances. First, it may help if I provide a couple of further examples that set out why we believe that the exemption is so vital and why we believe that those acting in connection with the provision of care or treatment to their friends and family members who lack capacity should not be included in the definition of regulated activity provider.
	The daughter of a lady with dementia may wish to employ a neighbour for a few hours a week to help to take care of her mother. The neighbour may be paid or unpaid, but regardless, that is a private arrangement and we would not wish to interfere with that. Alternatively, a young disabled man may wish to enlist his friend's help in managing his direct payment and that friend may employ another friend or neighbour as a PA to help out with certain tasks. For example, the PA may take the young disabled man swimming or to a cafe for lunch. Again, it is not our intention to interfere in that kind of arrangement.
	As the Bill stands, in both those cases it is not our intention that either the daughter or the friend would be regulated activity providers and, therefore, they would not be required to make barred status checks on the individuals whom they employ. However, they would be able to make checks if they wished to do so in both cases. We must work on the basis that the daughter and the friend would act in the best interests of their family or friend and we must, therefore, give them the freedom to decide whether to engage with the scheme. To do otherwise would be to intervene in the type of family or friendly arrangement that was never intended to have legal consequences. I do understand that my noble friend does not seek to impose legal consequences but, as it stands, that would be the consequence.
	A key principle of the scheme is that we do not intrude into private and family life. As a result, we do not require parents to check everyone who cares for their children and we do not propose to do the same for the family members or friends of adults. We understand that adults who lack capacity should not be treated in the same way as children, but the Bill as drafted reflects the realities of family life. If all those who assist their loved ones or friends in managing their day-to-day lives in this way were placed in the mandatory sector, it would mean that anyone who failed to engage with the scheme would be committing a criminal offence. We do not wish to risk criminalising those caring for loved ones. To accept these amendments would do exactly that.
	As my noble friend Lord Harris and other noble Lords mentioned, Carers UK, an organisation that we all respect enormously, has expressed concern about any amendments that would result in placing legal requirements on family members and friends. It argues strongly against creating additional burdens on the 5.2 million carers who provide unpaid care. It is also concerned that,
	"additional burdens would act against Government policy which is seeking to open up choice to disabled people and their families about which services to use",
	allowing them to opt not to use large scale providers but to,
	"engage the help and services of people known to them, or through advertisement".
	The Government recognise the important contribution carers make and want to support them. I understand the points raised about the vulnerability of this specific group of people. It could be envisaged that family members or friends might on occasion take advantage of their vulnerability. I also understand the point made about targeting of those specific individuals. However, I would suggest that this is an area where we have to get the communication strategy right, and it is not just a question of Government but local agencies and organisations such as carers' organisations so that we can build a community of support where the checks are the accepted norm.
	The issue of trust raised by noble Lords is key, because we should not seek to destroy the trust that exists between family members and friends. Amendment No. 38A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, would have a similar outcome, but it would include within the definition of regulated activity provider under Clause 6 all those who act in connection with the provision of care or treatment as set out in Section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for family members or friends who lack capacity. This is a huge number of people and the arguments I have made in relation to Amendment No. 38 would apply to Amendment No. 38A.
	Amendment No. 50A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, seeks to remove paragraph (h) of Clause 14(1). This provision exempts those individuals in receipt of a direct payment and those individuals requiring assistance in the conduct of their affairs—individuals who have a lasting or enduring power of attorney, a deputy appointed by the Court of Protection to make decisions on their behalf, or an appointee taking care of their benefit or pension payments. As your Lordships will recall, we debated direct payments at some length in Committee. I understand that this is an area of concern for many and that opinion remains divided in terms of how best to protect individuals in receipt of direct payments. However, I must reiterate some of the arguments I raised in Committee. Direct payments are about giving individuals more choice and control over their lives—empowering them—and any move to place direct payments recipients in the mandatory sector would be met with strong resistance by the recipients themselves. The wishes of those benefiting from direct payments must be paramount when considering the requirements of the Bill.
	I would also point out that our approach has received widespread support from those organisations representing users of direct payments. For example, Menghi Mulchandani, co-chair of the National Centre for Independent Living, has stated that compelling people to check potential users against a barred list would deny them the opportunity to take the risks that others are free to take.
	However, we understand the concerns raised in relation to this group of people and we accept that more could be done, perhaps via the direct payment support services that exist in most local authorities, to support individuals in accessing the scheme. Therefore, we intend to place a duty on all local authorities to inform direct payments recipients about their right to engage with the vetting and barring scheme. We are currently looking at how that might be achieved, and I look forward to sharing the outcome of that exercise with noble Lords at Third Reading. That approach has been endorsed by a number of stakeholders, including Action on Elder Abuse.
	I now turn to the exemption for those requiring assistance in the conduct of their affairs. People defined under this subsection are potentially at an increased risk of abuse and therefore it is right that those individuals providing those types of support can be eligible for the central vetting process. However, in many cases, individuals providing that assistance to a vulnerable adult will be family members or trusted friends and, as such, it would not be appropriate, and might be perceived as being offensive, to impose mandatory checking requirements on them. We do not wish to interfere unnecessarily with that type of arrangement. We believe that the decision whether to vet staff should remain with the individual. They will decide whether or not to make a check and we will ensure that they are supported in that decision.
	None the less, it will be possible for checks to be made. In addition, the public guardian will be able to run checks where any concerns are raised or where the Court of Protection or the public guardian thinks that such checks are necessary. That is why we want to retain the exemption in this sector.
	I turn to Amendment No. 55A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. We intend that controlled activity will cover those working in health and social care with vulnerable adults. That will include those undertaking controlled activity in relation to direct payment recipients. However, we are not confident that the Bill as drafted does so, so we are grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing that to our attention. I will come back to noble Lords later with a suitable amendment. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her specific amendment.
	Many arguments have been made this afternoon about vulnerable adults. We have heard the concerns expressed by organisations such as Carers UK and others which take a contrary view. The Government believe that the 5.2 million carers in this country provide an invaluable service to people who need that care and we must listen to carers' associations. It is right to emphasise at this point that the Bill takes us so much further than where we are at present, where vulnerable people are not covered in any way by a barring and betting scheme. Although I accept that the Bill does not go as far as many noble Lords would wish, it is a huge step forward and I therefore ask noble Lords to accept our reassurance that we intend to create an additional further safeguard in relation to direct payments. We intend that local authorities should be under a duty to inform direct payment recipients of their right to make checks. We are currently considering how that may be done.
	I ask noble Lords to reconsider Amendments No. 38 and 38A and not to press them.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I must say that I am disappointed with it, especially given the very helpful discussions that we had earlier. Having said that, her proposal that there should be a legal obligation on local authorities to provide advice about the right to make those checks on recipients of direct payments is welcome and sensible.
	My concern, however, is not about recipients of direct payments who are able to act on their own behalf. It is entirely right that they should be given all the support and advice that my noble friend offers in her amendment. My concern lies with those people who act on their behalf. People who act on their behalf have a higher duty of care, in my view, than those who are making the judgment for themselves. We all make judgments about how much personal degree of risk we are prepared to take. Quite properly, we are under all sorts of constraints if we are making those judgments on behalf of other people, even other members of our family. That is how the law works in other contexts. Where people are making arrangements on behalf of those who do not have capacity, whose vulnerability means that they are unable to make those decisions, it is important that the statutory obligation to take steps to check people is contained in the Bill.
	I am very mindful of the concern expressed by Carers UK. I must say that I think that Carers UK is wrong. It is saying that the mere fact of a requirement is imposing an onerous burden on the individuals concerned. As I have argued—and I have the impression that most of your Lordships who have spoken agree—it is often easier if you have an obligation to act to say to people who appear to be—or are—friends, "This is something that we must do". Even if you have the right and have been advised by your local authority that you have the right to make those checks, it is very difficult to say to someone, "I have the option but, in your case, I have decided to exercise it". That is very difficult for individuals to do. So I think that Carers UK has got that wrong.
	Before my noble friends who are Whips get into a state of hysteria, thinking that I am about to divide the House on this matter, I make clear that I suspect that my precise wording does not quite meet the requirements that I have set out. I hope that the Government will think very carefully about what has been said in this short discussion today and will come back in two weeks' time on Third Reading with some more positive proposals that meet the needs.
	The Government have three choices. First, they can do something that reduces the criminality on individuals who fail to make the checks. Secondly, they could do something to restrict the number of people who are covered by the provision, so that it really affects those whose capacity is very limited. Perhaps they could do a combination of those two. Thirdly, they could try to persist with the line that my noble friend has followed today.
	However, I rather suspect that if they do the latter, an amendment will appear on the Order Paper that may have support from many sections of this House. It will be designed to try to remove the embarrassment that will in practice be found by friends and family who are acting in the best interests of the person whom they love, who will find it very difficult to press someone who may have inveigled their way into their families or friendship. They will find it difficult to say, "Despite the fact that we are not obliged to, we are going to make this check on you". That would make it a lot easier for all those individuals, so I hope that my noble friend will come back at Third Reading with a proposal that either delimits the number of people to whom the provision applies or avoids the situation where people feel that they are unduly criminalised.
	On the basis that I am sure that my noble friend will do just that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the amendments seek to ensure that individuals are not criminalised as a result of lack of knowledge or understanding of the requirements on them, or as a result of an oversight.
	Amendment No. 41 is intended to ensure that an offence is not committed by an individual who engages in regulated activity without being subject to monitoring where he did not know or could not reasonably be expected to know that he should be subject to monitoring. We entirely understand the noble Baroness's concern about criminalising individuals who do not know or understand the requirements on them. We certainly do not want to criminalise individuals unfairly; indeed, we have given a good deal of consideration to this matter. But I reiterate the commitments I gave to the noble Baroness in a letter following Committee, in which I said that we intend to take every reasonable step to ensure that there is no reason why individuals would be unaware that they were required to be subject to monitoring. We will expect the IBB to ensure that the scheme in place is well understood, and guidance issued before the commencement of the Act will provide further details about what type of activity will be covered by "regulated activity", and about the requirements on individuals to be subject to monitoring and not barred before engaging in this activity.
	The IBB and the CRB will put time and resources into an ongoing, widespread communication campaign for employers and employees, including the provision of seminars and training. I take to heart here the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on how we can engage more formally with employers to ensure that they are aware of their duties. We will continue to talk to the wide range of stakeholders with an interest in the Bill, as we have already done, and we will consult them where necessary. We will also communicate to individuals through websites and other media about their responsibilities under the new scheme. I should stress that we have already significantly extended the requirements for CRB checks as a result of the announcements made by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in January.
	On 12 May, new regulations came into force that make it mandatory to obtain enhanced CRB disclosures for all new appointments to the school workforce and those who have been out of the workforce for more than three months. These regulations have already come into force, and we are providing substantial information about them on the TeacherNet website and other means of communication with schools.
	To take up another point discussed in Committee, we will also provide a facility to advise employers and individuals on interpretation of the Bill's terms and requirements. We envisage that this facility will be provided by the CRB with the support of my department, the Department of Health and the IBB itself. The CRB currently gives guidance on the likely extent to which a particular position is eligible for standard and/or enhanced disclosures. However, as terms are open to interpretation, the status of the CRB's advice is—and will be—only guidance. It will have no bearing on how the courts interpret criminal offences. So, we will work hard to minimise the possibility of employers or employees not understanding the requirements imposed upon them.
	Furthermore, the requirement to be subject to monitoring will, in the main, only apply to those individuals engaging in regulated activity with the permission of a regulated activity provider. These providers will be under a duty to check, and will therefore reinforce the message to individuals that they must be subject to monitoring.
	I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will be reassured that we are effectively minimising any likelihood that an individual could engage in regulated activity without understanding the requirement to be subject to monitoring. However, we are acutely concerned about giving a defence in statute of the kind set out by the noble Baroness. The possible effect of the amendment would be to undermine the purpose of the scheme itself, because it could lead to employers and employees giving excuses and prevarication that prevent its effective enforcement. Providing the proposed defence for individuals will create a barrier to enforcing the scheme. It should be accepted that it is likely that the types of individuals who have a criminal record or past conduct that would lead to barring will, by the very nature of the offences, try to avoid applying to be subject to monitoring. Amendment No. 41 may provide an excuse for those individuals to avoid criminal sanctions. We are very anxious not to open up that loophole through the Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are similar in their intention to prevent individuals from committing an offence through a lack of understanding of requirements placed upon them. The first amendment proposes that,
	"A regulated activity provider commits an offence",
	of permitting an individual to engage in such activity,
	"without making an appropriate check",
	only where he does so "negligently". The second proposes that,
	"The appropriate officer commits an offence",
	of failing "to obtain relevant information" relating to a person,
	"who is appointed to the governing body of an educational establishment",
	only where he does so "negligently". We take the effect of these amendments to be that a person would only commit the offences in question if his actions—that is, his granting of permission or failure to make an appropriate check—were not those of a reasonable person in the circumstances. I expect that the noble Baroness intends here to prevent a small employer, who does not understand that they are under a duty to check, committing an offence for failing to do so.
	I hope that the commitments I have made regarding communication with employers and individuals will reassure the noble Baroness that we will be seeking to reduce the chances of an employer committing an offence through ignorance of the requirements placed upon them. As with the proposed Amendment No. 41, the effect of these amendments would be to create a new loophole and endanger the scheme itself. These amendments could well lead to employers giving excuses and prevarication that prevent effective enforcement of the scheme. We do not wish to create a defence for employers that could undermine the success of the scheme.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 42 to 44. These are intended to restrict the circumstances in which an employer or personnel supplier is liable for an offence by employing an individual who is not subject to monitoring in situations where they know that the individual is not thus subject. The amendments seek to ensure that they will not commit an offence if they only have "reason to believe" that the person is not subject to monitoring.
	I impress on the House that the inclusion of "has reason to believe" is necessary for the effective functioning of the scheme. Where an employer does an online check which indicates that the individual is subject to monitoring but—perhaps because he is barred, or withdraws from the monitoring process—the individual later ceases to be subject, the intention is that the employer should be notified of that by the Secretary of State. If for some reason the employer is not, then they may receive information from another source such as the police or a regulatory body, and will thus not know that the person is not subject to monitoring but will "have reason to believe" that he is not. In these circumstances, it is important that the employer does not employ the individual until they know that the individual is subject to monitoring.
	For the scheme to succeed, it is important that individuals who are working closely with children and vulnerable adults are subject to monitoring. That will help to ensure that where evidence indicates that an individual presents a risk, to children or to vulnerable adults, they will be prevented at the earliest opportunity from working in regulated activity. Therefore, it is important that individuals engaging in regulated activity are subject to monitoring. The offences created by this clause, with a fine of up to £5,000 for breaches, will be a necessary disincentive for individuals to engage in regulated activity without being subject to monitoring, when working for an employer who is under a duty to check that they are.
	These amendments are unnecessary, while having the potential to reduce the necessary bite of the offence created under this clause. We are worried that they might open up loopholes for employers and individuals to engage their duties to be subject to monitoring under the scheme. We hope that the noble Baroness will not press them.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
	Clause 10 [Use of person not subject to monitoring for regulated activity]:
	[Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment No 52, which questions whether this clause should remain in the Bill. Noble Lords may recall our debate in Grand Committee on exemptions, in particular Clause 14(1)(b) and (c), on protecting vulnerable people in prison, mindful that my concerns were not so much with what one might describe as the hardened criminal, but with young adults and offenders who are detained in custody. In introducing this amendment I explained that the report of the Second Joint Chief Inspectors' review on arrangements to safeguard children contains a wealth of information on the subject, covering the needs of both children and young people in custody. The report states that children and young people who commit offences present particular challenges for safeguarding. I also referred to various alarming statistics that highlight the vulnerability of young offenders. In addition, I referred to situations whereby communication and contact between agencies charged with protecting these people break down. I said that I believed this Bill to be the perfect opportunity to address this frankly disturbing and important issue.
	Unfortunately, I was not happy with the Minister's reply. He responded that:
	"The exemption in relation to those services means that they will be afforded the flexibility to specify and undertake vetting requirements relevant and proportionate to their unique services".—[Official Report, 3/5/06; col. GC255.]
	Why, for example, are young offenders' institutions so different from other residential institutions such as boarding schools or care homes? Of course the rules will be different, but the proximity between those in authority and their residents is quite similar, in which case I find it difficult to accept that we are talking about unique services.
	Moving on to the amendment on whether Clause 14 should remain in the Bill, noble Lords will note that I have added my name to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to demonstrate the depth of my continuing concern about the list of exemptions. Since Grand Committee, I have had an opportunity to discuss this issue with the Minister, and our meeting was both useful and constructive. The noble Lord agreed that we ought to know exactly how the system of checking works within the Prison Service. Are there strict rules or guidelines? Do all those who may come into contact with offenders get checked? Let us remember that in Grand Committee I cited the Soham case as an example whereby proximity might not have been expected or presumed.
	I understand that the Minister and his team have been researching this issue, for which I am grateful, together with other issues relating to other exemptions listed in Clause 14, and therefore I look forward with interest and hope to his reply. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the reason for the amendment is to clarify the requirements on referrals to the IBB and to suggest that such referrals should be based on objective criteria and considerations. We have already mentioned those who have a duty to make referrals to the IBB. Among the bodies required to do so are local authorities, under Clause 31, and professional bodies, under Clause 33. The amendment relates to those two clauses.
	One of the central purposes of the Bill is to pick up on individuals who pose a risk to children or vulnerable adults either by their current conduct or by the possibility that they may offend in future. There is concern that Clause 31 and—for different reasons and to a lesser degree—Clause 33 are phrased very vaguely. It is important that the impact of the provision is not simply to pull into referral many of the types of cases dealt with by social services departments in respect of individuals who, while they may have harmed children, do not pose a risk. But we also run the risk of having very different interpretation by local authorities of these provisions and overwhelming the IBB with referrals.
	These two amendments are about ensuring that there is both a consistent and an appropriate threshold for referrals. The amendment therefore proposes that the Secretary of State is required to issue statutory guidance, both to the IBB and the local authorities, on the types of cases and circumstances that should be referred to the IBB under Clause 31. It also proposes that there should be similar guidance issued to professional bodies under Clause 33. This picks up once again the issues discussed earlier about employers in regulated activities, where the noble Lord was good enough to say that the IBB would be issued with clear guidance so that employers would know when to make such referrals. Local authorities and professional bodies will also need clear guidance as to when to make referrals to the IBB.
	On a slightly different issue, will the Minister clarify the thinking behind Clause 31(4)(a). The wording is slightly obscure. The first condition is set out in Clause 31(1) with reference to local authorities:
	"A local authority must provide IBB with any prescribed information they hold relating to a person if the first and second conditions are satisfied".
	The second condition is set out in subsection(4):
	"The second condition is that the local authority think . . . that the person is engaged or may engage in regulated activity or controlled activity".
	What does "may engage" mean? It is so vague. This requirement makes up one of the criteria that trigger a local authority duty to refer to the IBB. But is it this year, or next year? Could it be a student at the start of a vocational course who is involved in work in a regulated position? Will the Minister clarify this for us? I beg to move.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I hope I can meet the first points made by the noble Baroness by stating categorically that we will issue guidance to local authorities and professional bodies so that they are clear about the grounds for the duty to refer information. We will do so for all the reasons that she gave as to the importance of ensuring clarity and consistency of practice nationwide. The guidance will also include advice on when the "harm test" can be said to have been satisfied and, as I set out in the note on the definition of the "harm test" I circulated to noble Lords before Grand Committee, harm will include physical harm, damage to a child or vulnerable adult's emotional or mental state, and harm to a vulnerable adult as a result of financial loss.
	Guidance will also be issued on the grounds on which the condition at Clause 31(4)(b)—that the local authority or professional body thinks that IBB may consider it appropriate for the person to be included in a barred list—may be met. This will ensure that local authorities and professional bodies are not under a duty to refer information on the grounds of trivial incidents of harm that would not be sufficient to bar a person.
	The guidance will also clarify the meaning of "may engage in a regulated position", which is used at Clause 31(4)(a), the clause to which the noble Baroness has just referred. It is not intended that this condition should effectively include anyone who has the capacity to engage in regulated or controlled activity at some point in the future, nor that a local authority or professional body should make a judgment about a person's likelihood to engage in regulated or controlled activity several months or a year from the time at which it is considering referring information about the person to the IBB. It is intended that this condition should include cases where a person, for example, is seeking employment in regulated or controlled activity—or a person has a significant history of involvement in voluntary work with children and vulnerable adults—and the local authority thinks that he may do so in the future, even though he is not volunteering at the precise moment when the local authority is considering referring information about him to the IBB. I hope that this addresses the point raised by the noble Baroness and limits, as the guidance will do, the very general wording in that subsection.
	The Secretary of State will also prescribe the information that must be referred to the IBB once the conditions for the grounds for referral have been met. As I set out fully in the regulation powers note, which I circulated before Grand Committee, it is envisaged that the information will include certain factual information relating to the case, including an individual's name and other personal details, details of the behaviour engaged in by the individual, copies of relevant documents such as interview notes and notes of evidence, and information about police involvement and disciplinary hearings. I hope that I have given the noble Baroness the assurances that she was seeking and that she will feel that she does not need to press the amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 70A, and to speak to Amendment No. 70B, which is grouped with it. The effect of these amendments would be to allow Parliament to amend orders that amend the definition of what constitutes regulated activity under Clause 5(3), the power to make incidental provision—including modifying any enactment—under Clause 47(2) or regulations made under paragraph 19 of Schedule 2, listing offences or orders for which conviction, caution and so on will lead to automatic inclusion, or inclusion subject to representations on the barred lists.
	In Grand Committee, we tabled a different amendment to achieve the same thing. The Government's response was that this was highly unusual. Highly unusual it may be, but unprecedented it is not. So today I have tabled amendments that are virtually identical, with appropriate changes, to the parts of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 which try to do the same thing: to enable Parliament to amend an order. It is particularly appropriate in this case because we are talking about lists that would be laid before Parliament. We have had sufficient debate and disagreement this afternoon about what should and should not be on lists. There will certainly not always be a meeting of minds as to any future list that might come before us in this way. It might be perfectly appropriate for Members of Parliament to be able to agree to some kinds of activities on a list that might be put before them and to not agree to others. It is important that Parliament should have the opportunity and an appropriate process laid down, which has a precedent in the Civil Contingencies Act, so that it can agree with some items that the Secretary of State might propose and disagree with others.
	That is the reason for the change in approach. I accept that the amendment we tabled in Grand Committee was inadequate because it did not give a mechanism by which the matter could be dealt with, should somebody disagree with something on the list, or should a majority of members disagree with something on the list. That is why I have taken the model from the Civil Contingencies Act and re-submitted it with the same objective. I beg to move.

Baroness Whitaker: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they respond to calls for environmentally sustainable fishing and logging policies.
	My Lords, I resist calling this a fish and chips topic, but there is a sense in which fish and the products of forest trees go together. Both are essential to the livelihood and sustenance of very many of the poorest of the poor; the large-scale commercial exploitation of both is harming the environment as well as those livelihoods; but exclusively environmental management of these precious public goods risks impoverishing further those who have little other resource.
	There are about 62 million households which depend in one way or another on fishing, and 22 million small-scale fishers. Of the total export value of the world trade in fisheries and aquaculture products of about $60 billion, half accrues to developing countries. It is a major source of foreign exchange for them and a key provider of cheap and accessible nutrition, as well as cash income for over 2.6 billion of their citizens.
	But, as we know, overfishing threatens all these gains. I heard many complaints in Senegal, where fishing is the only economic activity which provides decent jobs along the coastal area, about the big rapacious Spanish fishing boats which plundered their valuable and delicious fish, coming close in to the shore on night-time raids—an economic and an environmental threat.
	Last March, the High Seas Task Force, chaired by my honourable friend Ben Bradshaw, published research by the Marine Resources Assessment Group which set out the loss to the economies of poor countries from illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, worth up to $9 billion a year. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, the loss was equivalent to one quarter of their annual fishing exports. And that is apart from the unsustainable pressure put on fish stocks, the destruction of the marine habitat and the insidious incentive to other illegal activity such as smuggling and money laundering which such large-scale evasion of the rule of law encourages, made easier by flags of convenience regimes.
	The problem is not so much lack of rules—there are international instruments—as lack of enforcement and of political will. Relatively modest funds would be enough to guarantee the protection of sustainable national fishing industries, for instance, in West Africa and the Mozambique channel, where national governance systems are up to the task. DfID and Defra, working together, have started the ball rolling with an international plan of action. But it all needs to come higher up within the international political agenda and pull in better resources. Particularly, I ask my noble friend what approach the Government propose to the European Union, whose members fish so heavily off the African coast, with over $350 million of subsidy and arguably predatory fish licensing agreements, typical of those negotiated between strong and weak parties.
	Logging provides even starker examples of the need for vigorously enforced sustainability that does not disadvantage poor people. Your Lordships have heard before in this House, from the noble Lord, Lord Eden, and others, of the terrifying rate of depletion of the world's forests and of the effects on climate and biodiversity. Pressure groups have campaigned vigorously against their destruction, with some response. Most east Asian governments have signed up to a regional agreement to protect their forests. The deputy treasurer of the Conservative Party has bought a piece of the Amazonian rain forest. There is a new Chinese tax on chopsticks. The European Union has recently promulgated the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Initiative, to which the UK Government will donate £24 million over the next five years. Thus there is a range of solutions in prospect. But let us look more closely at some of them. One is to try to prevent any logging in forests. Mr Eliasch, who bought the 400,000 acres of rainforest, closed down the forestry operation and laid off 1,000 Brazilian workers. Cameroon decided to regulate commercial use of its forest through a statutory permit system, including substitute tree-planting, over 10 years ago. The money raised from the sale of the permits was to go to the development of adjacent rural areas. But laws are one thing and the capacity to implement them quite another.
	The DfID solution has built on its own illegal logging programme, commended by an independent review for exemplary working with the EU and for national cross-departmental work with the Foreign Office and with Defra. Some of the significant points in its successor policy are the participation of 25 private sector companies from across Europe and Africa, funds for enforcement and better governance in forest countries, and a recognition of the need to put our own—western—consumer house in order by deterring demand for illegally procured timber.
	But the tendency of multilateral agreements is to focus on safeguarding the forest against large-scale commercial exploitation of an unsustainable kind. No one can argue with the importance of that, and it is excellent that there is agreement among five EU governments to adopt procurement policies that favour certified wood. And It is a great pity that the United States does not want to join in.
	But there is a risk that those who live in the forests lose out. They will in any case lose employment if bad loggers are driven out, and they will lose their wood if "good" loggers police their patch and drive them away. I have seen poor millet farmers in Mali forbidden, by a very well intentioned NGO project manager, from using a cart to gather firewood. A much better example was the Takieta forest in Niger where the villagers, with the help of SOS Sahel, learn the difference between sustainable cutting of trees and damaging uprooting. There are also many other products of the forest than cut-down trees: there is rope, leaf fibre, gum arabic and medicine from renewable plants. If local harvesting is combined with local processing and manufacture, the value added remains in the community—if the capacity can be built up.
	Lack of long-term ownership, often the case for forest-dwellers, is a disincentive to investment in sustainability. In the absence of strong tenure rights, individual, environmental and economic rights need to be maintained. When powerful organisations, be they commercial loggers with modern legal title to land or influential environmental pressure groups, compete with the people who live in the forest, it is easy to see who will win. Forest management presents a conflict of rights, and it is important that a rights perspective is applied, with a conduit for just settlement where rights can be balanced one with another.
	Governments need the economic growth that sustainable cultivation of trees can contribute to. People need the jobs and cash that such employment brings. Forest dwellers also need their environment and their other sources of income to be protected. The world needs biodiversity, and the carbon and water storage which depend on it, to be safeguarded. May I ask my noble friend how DfID's newly launched strategy for research on sustainable agriculture will deal with more sustainable, equitable and profitable use of the forests? What will the role of the planned regional research programmes be?

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, like the other speakers in the debate I begin by welcoming it and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for introducing it. I am sure that we all agree that without environmentally sustainable fishing and logging policies, the world could quite shortly be turned into a pretty sorry place. We do not need to be very perceptive to come to that conclusion, nor to stand up in the House of Lords and tell the world.
	Most of us here have aspects of life away from the House; it is the nature of the place. One of mine is that I am a farmer and what in the old House of Lords would have been called a traditional landed estate owner, and is now probably known as a land manager. I am not hands-on, but it is part of what I do. I remember when I was training, my father said, "When you work with the land you must produce running with the grain of nature". We can see plenty of instances of the consequences of quarrying nature rather than simply taking a tithe. Perhaps there is no better example than the fate of the herring fishery in the North Sea. Once you have killed the breeding stock you wipe out the future.
	It seems that the invariable problem wherever one goes is that short-term greed gets in the way of long-term good management. It is more or less an invariable maxim of resource management that the short term is damaging. We must not forget that almost the greediest of all are governments and their treasuries.
	It is easy from the perspective of the gothic comforts of the Chamber of the House of Lords to be insufficiently sensitised to how this can come about. Unless we apply our minds to identifying the factors at play, we shall never achieve what I call a sustainable system of sustainability.
	Much about degradation has already been said, in particular that logging is driven by agriculture, which is intended to improve or at least sustain the basic standards of living. If your family is starving, who gives a damn about the future of the world? Many of those countries where there is much global concern about forests and logging, such as Indonesia and Brazil, or where there is concern about the depletion of the fishing resources, such as in west Africa, are poor. Their argument, which I can understand, is: "It is all very well for you in the rich northern and western countries. You've got rich by destroying the globe and now you want to stop us trying to follow you". It is important for us to understand that point and not simply to laugh it off. We have no real choice but to back our concerns with our money. We in countries such as ours must put our money where our mouth is.
	That, almost inevitably, takes one towards that maligned and frequently misunderstood phrase, "partnership", whatever it may mean. We need a framework in which that can be done. We need confidence that if we put our money in, an outcome will result. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, referred to the philanthropist who, she tells me, is vice-chairman of the Conservative Party and has bought some of the rainforest in Brazil to preserve it. If he is putting a large amount of his own money into that, he needs to have the confidence that the government there will not sequester it and cut it down.
	An obvious example of this kind of thing in a more general sense at government level is via the mechanism of debt relief. That has been done from time to time, and I entirely commend it. Certainly it is right and proper that aid programmes, whether bilateral or at European Union level, impose conditions. It is important to be sensitive about this because there is always a real risk that the creation of the framework could be perceived as neo-colonialism.
	I recall an occasion when I was sitting on the Front Bench opposite and had to go on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to Zambia. Part of my task was to explain to President Chiluba that the way in which he was implementing the aid polices was not quite in line with what had been agreed when the money had been handed over. President Chiluba got the message ahead of me and refused to see me. I can see his point. He did not want a lecture from a young whippersnapper from London.
	It is important to realise the significance of the way in which we carry forward some of the projects that we have in mind. If we do not win the hearts and minds of those with whom we have to deal to bring about some of the changes that we want to see, we are bound to fail. In life it is not good enough to be right; you must also be able to persuade your interlocutor that he wants, from choice, to run with the gist of the arguments you are advancing.
	One of the keys to making long-term progress is to establish a marketplace where there are incentives to promote good natural resource management and make them sufficiently attractive that they become more attractive to people in those countries than the rewards of simply exploiting and quarrying the natural resources.
	This is not merely a matter of government-to-government relations or NGO-to-government relations. It also involves the private sector using its own particular skills and resources, which are of course different from those of the other two parties that I mentioned, and which can contribute significantly to the desirable and needed changes in environmental practices and resource utilisation in many parts of the world. For example, carbon credits can be used to help establish forestry projects in third world countries, which are desirable as long as they are done in the right way with the right kind of species.
	But there is also a lesson for countries such as our own. What is "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". There is plenty of degradation of various kinds in our own country, in our own seas, and in the use of our own natural resources. We may not have done anything quite as dramatic as destroying rainforests in the United Kingdom, but it is uncanny how many mistakes of the much-derided common agricultural policy can be seen, at least to some extent, replicated in our forestry policy here. Such things need to be addressed as part of a wider project to ensure proper global resource management as a whole, and also to show the rest of the world that we are leading by example.
	Capitalism and private business are the greatest force for economic development and change that the world has ever seen. These forces must be harnessed to help solve the problems that we are debating tonight. What will the Government do to try to promote the private sector, much of which is the spiritual successor of those colonial servants who dedicated their lives to other parts of the globe? What about encouraging people once again to leave Britain and to work all round the earth, contributing to making it a better place?
	All that will cost. My party is returning to having an interest in those aspects of governance. No longer is it the preserve of the cranky few. Ruskinian economics should be at the heart of the economic debate, not a bolt-on to the periphery. It will cost, and it will probably cost us in this country disproportionately simply because proportionately we have a better ability to pay. We in Britain should recognise that with good grace, and recognise that the expenditure of public money outside the jurisdiction may in the long run be just as much in the national interest as spending it within it.

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on bringing this issue before the House tonight. She gave us a powerful exposé of the extent of illegal activities in these areas and the need for reasonable, manageable resources to enforce the existing conservation measures.
	Each contribution tonight has added to the knowledge of this House and to the scope of the debate. There have been too many excellent contributions for me to comment on them all. Perhaps I can add my own experience briefly before I move on to the substance of the debate. I can imagine nothing quite as dramatic as the first time I flew over the west African rainforest and saw the trees stretching to the horizon for 360 degrees. Sadly, some 20 years later, when, as a parliamentarian, I retraced my steps, instead of unbroken rainforest from horizon to horizon, I saw that it is now patchy and there are areas of savannah, scrub and bush. It is no longer the virgin rainforest that I had seen in my formative years.
	I agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of fishing in a country such as Senegal, where there are literally tens of thousands of single-person fishing industries—I am talking of people who fish from canoes in the open sea and by which they sustain their families, provided that the factory ships have not been along the week before and scoured the sea of anything that swims. I agree with her entirely on the importance of that.
	I should declare an interest as I want to comment on some of the work of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House. As a paid-up member, I suppose that qualifies as an interest.
	I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the development of the High Seas Task Force (HSTF), which was set up as a result of a call for action on illegal and unsustainable fishing at the world summit on sustainable development in 2002. Noble Lords may know that the task force was developed in 2004 and presented a final report, Closing the net: Stopping illegal fishing on the high seas, in March this year. A consultation workshop was held at Chatham House to discuss the UK action plan for implementing the recommendations of the task force. The UK action plan will comprise three strands, with the United Kingdom taking an international role in facilitating and promoting the adoption of the High Seas Task Force measures.
	The three strands are: first, taking a leadership and facilitation role for all HSTF measures for the next two years through our own co-ordination unit; secondly, undertaking work for specific measures; and, finally, taking action internally to implement the task force measures within the UK or overseas territory fleets or overseas territory waters. Although we are fairly early in the programme, it would be helpful if the Minister could provide us with an update and perhaps a progress report.
	Turning to the impact of illegal logging, or the sustainability of logging, the demand from consumer countries potentially helps to drive illegal logging activities in the producer countries. That fact has been recognised since the beginning of an international focus on illegal logging. In 1998, G8 countries agreed, as part of a G8 action programme on forests, first, to assess their internal measures, particularly public procurement policies, and then to aim to control illegal logging and international trade in illegally logged timber.
	In 2005, Ministers at the Forest Law Enforcement and Governance conference, in St Petersburg—where they get these titles from I do not know—came out with an important statement. They were,
	"convinced that all countries that export and import forest products [including timber and timber products] have a shared responsibility [to undertake action] to eliminate illegal exploitation of forest resources and associated trade".
	That is a very important statement. Governments can pursue a range of options to reduce their contribution to illegal logging overseas. They can try to exclude illegal products by setting up border mechanisms to prohibit imports, by using procurement policy to create protected markets for legal products only, and by using their own legal framework more aggressively to target importers of illegal products.
	That brings me to the concept of licensing. The immediate problem with licensing is how to distinguish between legal goods and illegal ones. Exporting and importing countries may not be aware that they are handling illegal products and, even if they are, often the standard shipping documentation is all too easy to doctor.
	The European Union has provided us with a solution: to establish a licensing system with partner countries. The heart of the EU action plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) rests on the negotiation of voluntary partnership agreements with producer countries. The timber licensing system is similar, in effect, to systems already in place in international agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) or the Kimberly Process, for example, on conflict diamonds. Unlike those, however, the licensing system is being built up through a series of bilateral agreements. Inevitably, there are a number of significant unknowns in the development of the FLEGT system.
	These important unknowns should be placed on the record. I hope that the Minister can give the Government's view, and that there will be some progress and answers. The unknowns I am talking about include the number of countries that will sign up to voluntary partnership agreements and thereby join the scheme. I believe that preliminary discussions have been positive, but producer countries will need to be convinced that the benefits of the licensing system, which gives access to EU markets, will outweigh the costs of the process.
	Another unknown is the impact of the scheme. Is it possible that exporters in producer countries will prefer to avoid the EU market and simply send their products to alternative outlets such as China, which is now a major importer of timber? Another unknown is: how easy will it be to evade the scheme? The fact that some producer countries may not join the scheme—at least initially—provides a route through which illegally produced, and therefore unlicensed, products from the voluntary partnership agreement countries can enter the EU. The last unknown is how rapidly the scheme can evolve.
	Finally, I want to raise some points on the legality of logging, the timber importing process and the overlapping sustainability issues. First, on timber procurement, I think it is fair to say that the United Kingdom leads in the European Union in most respects, but we need evidence of how well it is being implemented by government purchasers. It excludes social criteria; for example, the rights of forest communities, as a component of sustainability, which seems odd. The Government have argued that that is because of the EU procurement rules, but other countries are doing that; in particular, the Netherlands, France and Denmark, so I do not see what our problem is here. The same policy of licensing needs to spread through to local government and our devolved administrations as soon as possible. I would like to know what the Government are doing to help that process.
	The Government are aware that we are doing a lot of good things in this country, but we have a problem that the majority of the EU countries are not following suit, and we need some action from countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and Finland, which are major importers of timber. Finally, what action are the Government contemplating in working out how to plug the loopholes in the FLEGT timber licensing scheme?

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on securing this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, it has been a wide-ranging one with knowledgeable contributions from all sides of the House on issues that have serious worldwide ramifications in environmental, human rights and developmental terms. My noble friend Lord Eden rightly said that those issues are of the utmost importance. When we consider the calls we make on our counterparts in the developing world to uphold standards of good governance, transparency and accountability, it is vital that we should be able to lead on these issues by our own example. This is no different when we look at the natural resource sector, be it forestry, fishing, oil or minerals.
	The recent controversial European fishing deal with Morocco, the World Wildlife Fund criticism of the failure to control deep-sea fishing, the International Fund for Animal Welfare's renewed campaign against commercial whaling in Japan and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species ban on trade in caviar and other products from the sturgeon at the start of this year are only a few examples that emphasise concerns surrounding unsustainable fishing and the significant impacts both here and aboard. It is a topic that needs to be tackled head on before we completely decimate the world's fisheries, destroy marine habitats and kill billions of unwanted fish and other marine animals.
	My noble friend Lord Inglewood gave the good example of the herring stock in the North Sea. My noble friend Lord Eden mentioned the WWF report, which stated that,
	"unsustainable fishing is predominantly caused by poor fisheries management and wasteful destructive fishing practices . . . as a result the future of the fishing industry is under threat, as are already endangered marine species and habitats, and the livelihoods and food security of millions of people".
	Environmentally, bycatch has been responsible for the death of over 300,000 small whales, dolphins and porpoises each year, pushing several species to the verge of extinction. My noble friend Lord Eden mentioned loggerhead turtles, which are very much endangered. More than 250,000 of them and the critically endangered leatherback turtles are caught annually on longlines set for tuna and swordfish. Twenty-six species of seabirds, including 17 albatross species, are threatened with extinction because of longlining, which kills more than 300,000 seabirds each year.
	Within this context is our own fishing industry. The UK fleet landed 654 tonnes of sea fish with a total value of £513 million in 2004. In addition, we imported some £1,473 million worth of fish, and exported fish and fish products to the tune of £881 million. We have a substantial fish processing industry of around 573 businesses, which employ some 18,180 people. The Government admitted in their strategy unit report, Net Benefits, that the,
	"current systems of UK and EU fisheries management will not ensure long-term, sustainable commercial fish stocks".
	Indeed, the common fisheries policy has failed to conserve fish stocks and protect the livelihoods of fishermen. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, admitted that the CFP had not faced up to the real difficulties of conservation and ensuring the fair sharing of the burden.
	This is not leading by example. What steps have Her Majesty's Government taken to assess the current fish stocks and encourage sustainable fishing practices with the use of refined equipment and techniques to reduce the incidence of bycatch? How are they ensuring the affordability of such equipment and the training for various techniques? We on these Benches believe that the best way to ensure sustainable fishing is to allow the nation's fishermen to run the industry on a local basis; and also within a strategic framework set by national Government in which the priorities should be the restoration of the marine environment and the rebuilding of the industry managed on a day-to-day local basis.
	On a larger scale, what response have Her Majesty's Government undertaken in light of calls that regulators have failed to respond to the expansion of bottom trawling in deep waters? What representations have they made to support the provision of more teeth to these regulators and the WWF recommendation that the United Nations should review fishing on the high seas and strengthen the resolve of regional authorities to deal with states that flout agreements? I would also appreciate it if the noble Baroness could outline the Government's stance on Japan's continual and increasing violations of the 20-year ban on whaling, which has been mentioned.
	I now turn to the issue more commonly known as "conflict timber". Thanks to the invaluable work of organisations such as Global Witness and the Environmental Investigation Agency, the link between natural resources, especially illegal timber, and human rights issues has been exposed; as have the hidden costs such as declining biodiversity, soil erosion and increased risk of fires as seen in the infamous south-eastern haze nine years ago.
	The human rights angle has been highlighted in the recent trial of Gus Kouwenhoven in The Hague who admitted that revenues from Liberia's illegal logging industry were used to import weapons, despite the UN arms embargo. Similar links were exposed regarding the funding of the Khmer Rouge, which began to disintegrate once international pressure forced the Thai Government to close their border to its illegal logging trade. Conflict timber has also been identified as a significant source of revenue for violent conflict in Burma and for supporting the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe.
	I commend the lip service that Her Majesty's Government have undertaken on the issue, but I remind the House that the UK is the biggest importer of illegal wood within the EU, which itself is responsible for £3 billion of lost revenue to producer countries. This lost revenue is vital to help developing countries stand on their own feet and manage their resources in a more environmental manner. Why bother if the market price for sustainable timber is consistently being undercut by cheaper illegal wood? It is vital that we maintained joined-up government on the issue, both in terms of preventing the import of illegally harvested timber and supporting the implementation of forest law enforcement, training and awareness projects through DfID and EU programmes in the source countries.
	What steps have Her Majesty's Government taken to ensure that imported timber, especially for government projects, is sourced only from sustainable managed reserves that can be properly traced, especially when it is imported through third countries such as China? What pressure have the Government put on the international community to promote laws in the EU and the US specifically to prohibit the import and sale of illegally sourced timber and wood products? What representations have the Government made to the authorities in Indonesia and other source countries to prosecute financial crimes relating to illegal logging and to criminalise the illegal sawmill bosses and owners, following the recent criticism by the Indonesian Minister responsible for logging? What projects do we support that encourage appropriate training and remuneration for forestry inspectors to help to prevent temptation in the form of bribes?
	These two issues merit separate debates. However, it is clear that there are strong themes running through both which emphasise the importance, both politically and environmentally, of natural resources and the role that they play in human rights and development issues. The current levels of effective policing in the developing world of forestry and fishing issues are not enough.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for securing today's debate and giving us all the opportunity to discuss and raise awareness about environmentally sustainable fishing and logging policies. As she and other noble Lords have graphically demonstrated, both fisheries and forests are essential to the livelihood and sustenance of the poor, but also to wider global sustainability.
	There are powerful pressures on the world's fisheries and forests. Developing countries are faced with growing demands on their resources from rapidly expanding domestic and international markets. At the same time, the need to manage and protect these resources in a sustainable way—for the long-term benefit of poor countries and for the global environment—has never been more pressing.
	My noble friend Lord Hunt raised the question of education and the role that schools might play in raising awareness in the UK and in developing countries. I am delighted to inform noble Lords that there are some excellent government initiatives that have linked schools in the UK with schools in developing countries. They interact via the internet, webcams, and so on. I will certainly provide noble Lords with further information.
	The economic, environmental and social impact of the fishing industry is a key element in the fabric of the UK's coastal waters and communities. The industry is part of the social fabric of many coastal communities and has an important contribution to make to the well-being of the marine environment, which includes achieving sustainable fisheries.
	Defra's five-year strategy highlights the need to put sustainable development into practice. Embedded in the strategy are its key marine fisheries objectives. These include: ensuring clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas; and a fishing sector that is sustainable, profitable and supports strong local communities, managed effectively as an integral part of coherent policies for the marine environment.
	The Government also recognise the importance of fisheries to developing countries. International trade in fish amounts to $60 billion a year, half of which has its origins in developing countries. The value of fish exports is greater than the combined values for tea, coffee, cocoa and sugar. I find that quite staggering.
	Sustainable fisheries can make a significant contribution to economic growth and poverty reduction in the developing world but, in many countries, this contribution is limited by problems of poor management, as recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. Pressures are being generated by high demand for fish products in rich countries, by high levels of poverty and increasing numbers of people having to resort to fishing to sustain a basic livelihood—and, in some cases, by developed countries subsidising their fleets to move into the waters of poorer countries.
	Illegal fishing is causing particular problems. DfID-funded research has found that $9 billion a year is lost to illegal fishing internationally and that a major part of that cost is borne by poorer countries. Defra and DfID are working closely to implement an international plan of action to tackle illegal fishing. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, the value of illegal fishing is $1 billion per year.
	However, not all is doom and gloom. Success stories such as Namibia show the way forward. There was a 39 per cent rise in GDP contribution from fisheries between 1990 and 2000. Political commitment and good management led to control of illegal activity, resulting in increases in productivity, revenues and jobs. I am pleased to report that my honourable friend Gareth Thomas recently had discussions with the Namibians about developing a regional approach, along the lines of the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Regulation. If such an initiative were developed by African regional groupings, DfID would consider financial support, but I assure the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that that would be an Africa-led initiative. They would be in the driving seat and we would be there supporting them; it would not be a sort of neo-colonial initiative.
	In the long run, the contribution of sustainable fishing to the economies of developing countries can be realised only if rich countries take into account the impact of their policies on developing countries. DfID and Defra are working to ensure that there is coherence in international fisheries policy as it relates to developing countries.
	My noble friend Lady Whitaker asked about the Government's approach to the European Union, whose members fish heavily off the African Coast. We have been working to ensure that the EU pays increasing attention to coherence between the Community's fisheries objectives and EU international development objectives—for example, by promoting the need for greater scrutiny of fisheries agreements to ensure that they are equitable and benefit the developing countries concerned. The European Commission is committed to participating in the international action plan to take forward the recommendations of the High Seas Task Force and to tackling illegal fishing, especially through ensuring rigorous monitoring and surveillance of its own fleet operating under fisheries agreements. I can assure my noble friend Lord Hunt that monitoring continues to be of the utmost importance.
	The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, asked for an update on the action plan for fishing. Defra and DfID are now establishing a joint unit to implement the plan. This week, a team is at the UN to promote wider involvement in the action plan. Furthermore, we are in discussion with the Government of Namibia, as I have just reported .
	In passing, I mention what the Government are doing to promote the private sector, a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. DfID is promoting business-to-business links between European and African timber companies through the Timber Trade Federation—I have moved on to timber. It is also working with a group of progressive European timber companies to improve forest management. Finally, it is working with the private sector in the UK to promote sustainable fisheries.
	Developing countries will also need the capacity to manage their resources if they are to secure their share of the benefits from these resources. The Government are prepared to offer support to help countries to develop that capacity, and to help them to negotiate better terms in their relations with the developed countries of the world. I note the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and I will certainly ensure that these are brought to the attention of the House authorities. I am sure that we would all warmly support what he is endeavouring to achieve.
	I now move from fish in our own restaurants to chips and, in doing so, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Eden, for his untiring efforts to sustain the rainforests. He asked what, among other things, we were doing for indigenous populations. I assure him that the UK is working in partnership with a number of countries and a wide range of organisations to protect the livelihoods of forest-dependent poor people, including indigenous peoples, and to ensure that benefits from commercial logging support them and the development in their communities. DfID is working to ensure that indigenous peoples in the Democratic Republic of Congo have a voice and can secure benefits for local people from the activities supported by the World Bank.
	The pressures on the world's rainforests, more than half of which have already been lost, are enormous. Much of the logging is both illegal and unsustainable. Poor countries suffer the most. Illegal logging loses governments billions of dollars in lost revenue and distorts markets and trade. It promotes corruption, undermines the rule of law and sometimes funds armed conflict. It also has environmental consequences, as many noble Lords have pointed out, including the loss of habitats and biodiversity. Climate change studies suggest that deforestation is responsible for about 20 per cent of man-made carbon dioxide emissions. The UK Government provide support to forestry in developing countries through DfID, Defra and the FCO. The main support, through DfID country programmes, averages £18 million per year. The FCO supports sustainable forest management through its global opportunities fund, and Defra supports work on biodiversity through the Darwin initiative.
	I regret that I omitted to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Eden, about sonar devices in fishing and their implications for whales. The Government are aware of the potential damage from developments in sonar initiatives. They are funding research to try to understand better the impact of such new technologies, and will establish a policy to address the problem once there is a clear understanding of the interactions with marine mammals.
	DfID's current work is focused on addressing the policy, governance and market failures that drive illegal and unsustainable logging. Its support for improved forest governance, law enforcement and trade and for stronger civil society engagement in policy making is helping to promote sustainable logging policies in timber-producing countries such as Indonesia and Ghana. It also contributes substantial funds to the development of international forest policy through the World Bank, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation and the Global Environment Facility. Last year, the UK was host to G8 Environment and Development Ministers, and we reached agreement on some important policy commitments to reduce demand in G8 countries for illegally logged timber.
	There was other progress in 2005. Under our EU presidency, the EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Regulation, which the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey mentioned, was adopted. We will now be able to enter into agreements with timber-producing countries and provide them with assistance to tackle illegal logging and to reform their forest policies, governance and trade. DfID will spend £24 million over the next five years to support this work. I think that the noble Lord asked for an update on where we are on the EU regulation and how many countries have signed up to it. I cannot give him a reply at present. It is very early days, but I undertake to inform all noble Lords in writing as soon as we have any progress.
	As I mentioned, this year we will continue to work with the private sector to encourage responsible business practices that favour legal timber, and we will build on the successes of the UK's timber procurement policy and the commitment of central government departments to procure products made from legal and sustainable timber. My noble Friend Lady Whitaker referred to DfID's newly launched strategy for research on sustainable agriculture. This includes: a programme to use more research to help to validate and promote the best innovations from previous DfID-funded research; four regional research programmes—three in Africa and one in Asia—which will work on regional priorities in close partnership with existing regional organisations; and a joint-funded programme with UK research councils to ensure that basic research is promoted and adapted for use in developing countries. None of these elements takes a sectoral approach, and naturally we consider sustainable agriculture to include the management of forest resources. It is likely that sustainable forest resource management will be prioritised to some extent within each element.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke of the dire conditions of workers involved in ethanol production in Brazil. The Government are indeed aware of the dreadful condition of those workers, but the Brazilian Government have publicly stated that they want to eradicate such practices before the end of their term, and have prepared legislation to confiscate farms that practice slave labour. Our Government raise with the Brazilian Government the importance that we attach to addressing these and other human rights concerns in Brazil. That was done most recently in April when my noble friend Lord Triesman called on Brazil's special secretary for human rights.
	The challenges related to environmentally sustainable fishing and logging are enormous. It is absolutely clear that, in the long run, the contribution of both sustainable fishing and logging to the economies of developing countries can be realised only if the rich countries take into account the impact of their policies on developing countries, and if the latter have the capacity for sustainable management of their own resources. I trust that the initiatives I have outlined today demonstrate that we are committed to working on both fronts, and are making progress.

House adjourned at sixteen minutes before nine o'clock.
	Wednesday, 24 May 2006.